Steve, It is not just emergency traffic, but H&W traffic, important informational traffic, e-mail from distant points, etc. It can sometimes include systems such as Winlink 2000, but for the most part it will not, since they have two things that greatly changes the calculus compared to the past.
1) Most of the traffic actually will go on VHF/UHF digital via conventional packet and other new digital modes such as D-Star. 2) All the forwarding traffic is done via the internet, not through amateur radio like the older Winlink system. Personally, I am of the group that wants both internet and amateur radio connections so that no matter what, our traffic can get through alternate paths in an emergency or similar disaster situation. That is the main current limitation of Winlink 2000. That is why some of us promote the other digital enhancements to Winlink 2000 that the ARRL Board of Directors has as its policy recommendation put in place last year about this time. In other words, to enhance whatever we have, so that it can become better that what we currently have. In order to have such a system in place, it needs to be contantly exercised, preferably on a daily basis so that it will be there when you need it and the hams will know how to use it. In our county, we have agreements between the local ARES/RACES group and local Emergency Management and we play a number of roles in assisting disasters, e.g., providing communications between incompatible systems, specific hospital links via amateur radio that will work even without normal telecommunications, etc. There is no digital component in the county but we do have some digital efforts at the Section level. As far as needing any regulations changes, that is another issue. From what I have learned this week, it may be possible to have improved digital communication on HF with higher baud rates. That would be fairly trivial to change in the rules. What I do see is the restricting of bandwidths to ~3 or so KHz and that will make high speed digital protocols much more difficult since you can not ignore the science behind it. I am very skeptical that digital voice can ever hope to compete with analog voice in a 3 KHz channel width and that probably has to be in order to use the spectrum that we have in the most efficient manner possible. But I do expect non real time digital modes to improve, such as digital data, however the new proposals do not address my biggest concern of finally being able to intermix analog voice (and digital voice) with both data and image. Again that does not require huge changes either. 73, Rick, KV9U N6CRR wrote: > . I just wonder how many of those guys ever work any other mode other > than passing email. Most all emergency communications is going to be > defined to a local area of the country anyway. (Emergency is defined a > threat to life and property). I am not against the handling of > important traffic, as a matter fact I am all for it. > > It's actually a bit more than that in some ways. > > Ask your local law enforcement folks if they have an integrated > disaster plan that includes amateur radio operators. I think you will > find that they do not have one that relies on Amateurs are either > first or second responders. The reasons are varied, but mostly; how do > you plan a disaster around people and resources that may or may not > show up when the excrement hits the fan? > > The ARRL is talking about standing up a group to figure out how to > define a roll in disaster operations for Amateurs, about time, but > it's going to be a hard road. How Internet over HF frequencies fits > into a bigger picture is an open question, but an important one. By > the way, what's wrong with opening up 6 meters for this sort of HF to > Internet thing where you can get 50 or 60 miles distance pretty easily > which would fit the bill for getting out of the immediate disaster zone? > > In my view, the folks pushing the internet connection via Amateur > frequencies are trying to come up with an answer to the role of > Amateur radio in disasters question. Seems to me that they have the > cart before the horse, or maybe this is a "build it and they will > come" point of view. I don't question the intent of these folks by the > way, it's a worthy goal IMHO, but the community is not behind them. > Maybe the ARRL will actually do some good with it's study on this > topic, then the dialog can be based on real requirements, real > capabilities and have real support. RM-11306 and RM11305 rightly or > wrongly is seen as a power grab by an elite few and hopefully will fail. > > 73 > Steve N6CRR > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
